All Episodes
Previous Next
March 17, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:06
March 17, 2006, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 24-7 podcast.
Yeah, just checking something here to I had to make sure all the ducks are in a row here before we can uh get started.
Late arriving shipments uh, if you will, here.
The show prep never stops, folks, even while we're in the middle of performing the show, the program, whatever.
It's Friday, so let's go.
Live from the Southern Command in Sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Yippee.
Here we go, folks.
We got open right Friday for you, and I am Rush Limbaugh, America's anchor man truth detector.
Here's the phone number.
You can start lining up.
Actually, people line up.
You ought to see the phones here.
They start lining up about 8:30 in the morning.
And I just want to those of you who do that, don't waste your time.
It doesn't work.
Because we come in here and we clear the lines because you can't possibly.
Oh no, we don't do that on Friday.
I take that back.
We don't do that on Monday through Thursday we clear the lines because people can't possibly know what they're calling about.
But anyway, whatever you wish to discuss, folks, as you know, this is the one day of the week that I take a giant career risk.
Mostly Monday through Thursday.
This show's about what I care about and nothing else.
Uh what interests me.
I'm not going to sit here and be bored.
But on Friday I will endure boredom.
Um at least when we take phone calls, because if you want to talk about something that uh you really are impassioned about, but I may not care about, we'll take the call anyway.
Questions, comments.
Uh just the only thing I'm not going to talk about.
Well, I'm not going to put any limits.
I was going to say the NCAA basketball attorney.
I I act uh don't know anything about it, don't know who's in it.
Uh don't know when it starts.
If it started, uh so other than that, everything's fair game.
Phone number is 800-282-2882.
The email address is Rush at EIBNet.com.
Now, yesterday we told you that uh that Senator Feingold had a press conference and mentioned me as uh uh the primary right wing critic and also mischaracterized my support for President Bush, saying that I basically said that uh the president could revive his reputation by breaking the law.
This is about Feingold Censure movement and his attempt to get Bush censured uh because of the uh the domestic wiretap scandal, which he desperately hopes to convince people is uh is a violation of the law.
So uh before we get to the audio sound bites of that, we have that.
You know what Feingold did, he essentially rolled a bomb down the down the aisle of the Senate floor and sent everybody scattering, even members of his own party.
Well, he said a couple of them join him now.
Uh Feingold is joined by Barbara Boxer and uh and Tom Harkin of uh of Iowa.
Uh but aside from that, uh nobody has really signed on to this thing.
And yesterday, Minnesota Senator Mark Dayton, a Democrat, strongly criticized Fine Gold's resolution to censure President Bush over domestic spying.
It's an overreaching step by somebody who's grandstanding and running for president at the expense of his own party and his own country.
Said Dayton of Feingold.
I think it's a very dangerous territory for the democracy that we have in this country to be playing around with those kinds of resolutions without any consultations from his colleagues.
I think it was irresponsible.
Dayton is a member of Feingold's own party from a neighboring state and has himself been one of Bush's harshest critics.
Dayton said he and his democratic colleagues were blindsided by Feingold's proposal made last Sunday on ABC News.
For somebody who wants lead our nation and our party, I think consultation and forewarning is a prerequisite to that kind of leadership.
This is what happens when you have to play to your your your hard left wing base.
And I, you know, Feingold's this is a good lesson for these people, I think.
Feingold is going to find out what it's gonna happen what what's gonna happen to him out there uh when he starts his presidential campaign.
These guys are not used to getting criticism.
But when you count out to the far left fringe of your party, uh you're you're you're opening yourself up and and uh the they're they're gonna you watch.
They're they're going to be uh profoundly surprised.
I also think that Dayton coming out with his statement here and some of these other Democrats.
Uh uh isn't Dayton quitting.
Is he he I don't think he's running again?
He's not running again.
So we could have a we could have a Republican pickup here.
GOP could pick up his seat in Minnesota.
It's not that far out of the realm of possibility.
You know, I I think he's you know the the he could have a dual purpose here, folks.
Uh just wants to tamp down all a lunacy on the on the left until after November.
It's just a convenient way for the Democrats to hold on to some semblance of Middle America and still get the insane left's support.
So there may have been consultation.
We don't know.
But let's go to Fine Gold's press conference yesterday.
And he again, he's he's given us a gift showing us who the Democrats really are.
Here's the first of three sound buttons.
At the Judiciary Committee hearing uh that I attended with seven constitutional scholars, I asked those who believed in this inherent power whether this inherent power would extend to assassinating American citizens.
And none of them could give me a colorable or credible answer that it would not.
That's a dangerous doctrine.
And uh that is the context that makes me think that censure is an appropriate, in fact, measured response to this kind of an attempt at executive power.
You gotta be kidding me.
So Feingold is now suggesting that this law that Bush has cited to spy on Americans could lead to the assassination of Americans.
And he brought seven scholars up there, and none of them could say, no, I can't see where this could be prevented.
They're going nuts, folks.
They're going nuts.
I just I he might be able to Bush could nuke an American city.
He might he might nuke the whole state of Wisconsin if Feingold is not careful here.
He could probably get away with it under this law.
I mean, if you can assassinate American citizens, you could nuke them.
This got to love this.
I asked those who believed in this inherent power, uh what don't forget this inherent power.
Can we go back when this thing first came up?
Inherent power was was first used by Jamie Gorellick to describe President Clinton's inherent power to do just this kind of thing.
This kind of surveillance, foreign surveillance, all previous presidents have done it.
Our memories are short, not on this program, but some people's memories are very short.
This is uh uh uh told you it's a gift and they're they're uh and and I haven't seen any outraged reaction to this.
Because you have a United States senator here basically suggesting that this inherent power would allow the president to assassinate people.
Here's the second, but there are actually four bites.
Here is the uh the second to four.
We've got an unidentified reporter saying, I'm curious why you're even holding this news conference right now.
Is this to sort of defend what you've triggered here?
Seems to me appropriate when the spin machines are out there and people are using uh various language to come out and reiterate my reasons for doing this.
Uh, I think that the press uh decided immediately that somehow this was a bad thing for Democrats and a good thing for conservatives.
The facts don't bear it out.
You don't have the polls to prove it.
The way my colleagues are responding to me, suggest to me they're thinking about this, that they feel that there has to be some accountability.
So the instant decision about what the story is actually I think is going to backfire on those who made up the story.
I don't get the feeling that I had on Monday about this.
Yes, people were concerned.
I'm not getting that.
So he says people have decided that his move is bad for Democrats, but they don't have the polls to prove it.
These people are all about polls.
By the way, there is a poll on on impeachment, and there is a poll on censure, and I'll get to that here in just a second.
Here is his uh his attack on me.
He added this next little bit right after he finished the previous bite that you heard.
If the right wing really believes in this country that Rush Limbaugh and others that they can somehow turn the president's reputation around by saying, you're darn right he violated the law and it's a good thing.
I think they're just as confused as they are about their Iraq politics.
People aren't buying it anymore.
So I not only do I not regret it, I felt an absolute obligation to do it.
Well, something's up here because nobody joins him out in a couple other kooks in the Senate, so he goes out there and has to call a press conference again to try to regain some credibility because his own party ran away from him on this, because he rolled a bomb in the Senate when everybody everybody ran for cover.
But now he's out there mischaracterizing what I said.
I've never said that the president broke the law, just the exact opposite.
And that has been established by a whole bunch of people who've looked at this.
It really it it it this isn't even an argument.
It's an argument in the drive-by media, it's an argument in the Democratic Party, it's a false argument they're putting forth, but there's the the law is clear and it wasn't violated, and members of Congress were brought in on it.
But you're not going to bring all of them in on it.
So what I take from this is that Feingold has got to be in a in a weakened position here if he's gonna run out and mischaracterize what me and uh others, there are no others, by the way, there's only me.
Uh what I am saying about this, turn the president's reputation around by saying your darn right he violated a law, it's a good thing.
I never said it.
In fact, I didn't say we're going to turn the president's reputation around.
I said you guys are destroying yours.
You're giving us a gift.
You're telling everybody who you are.
You are establishing that you've got in your DNA an adversion to national security.
You yet you just can't be trusted.
Where in the world is anything that I've said, we can't find it.
We went back to the transcripts.
I searched my own memory.
Well, there's nothing I said about the president reputation being revived by breaking the law.
In fact, I haven't even talked about the president's reputation in this.
I haven't even talked about the president.
I've talked about the Democrats, the Liberals, and what this position of fine golds represents.
So another question from a reporter.
You talk about your uh Democratic colleagues sort of cowering about this issue.
I mean, you you look at all the polls getting consistently worse and the sort of frozen response.
It's not like Democrats are against the idea.
It's like they don't really even know how to express themselves on this issue.
Why is that?
When I used that word, which is a strong word, I would use it in the form of a question.
Why would people cower at a time when the president's numbers are so low?
That was the context.
There is a tendency in our party, unfortunately, that we have to break through to be afraid of taking a strong stand and stick to it.
What the American people want are people that believe in something.
There's this tendency, as soon as the president and the spin machine comes out and says, This means you folks are soft on terrorism, we let them intimidate us.
Oh.
Now he has to explain why he accused his fellow Democrats of cowering.
Uh he's right about one thing.
Voters want people who believe in something.
Unfortunately, they don't want what Senator Feingold believes in.
And that has been pretty well demonstrated.
Quick time out.
We'll be back and continue in mere moments.
Do you see this uh see this headline yesterday?
Had it to stack yesterday, but I didn't get to it till today.
Airline screeners fail government bomb tests.
These are professionals.
And Dubai was not involved.
And I didn't mention the ports deal.
I just said Dubai is not involved.
I want to go back.
Uh Mike, grab grab uh audio soundbite number um uh see, what is it, number one, I think, where he talks about assassination.
I I yeah uh play this soundbite again from Fine Gold.
I want to I want to think this through with uh you people.
At the Judiciary Committee hearing uh that I attended with seven constitutional scholars, I asked those who believed in this inherent power whether this inherent power would extend to assassinating American citizens.
And none of them could give me a colorable or credible answer that it would not.
That's a dangerous doctrine, and uh that is the context that makes me think that censure is an appropriate, in fact, measured response to this kind of an attempt at executive power.
All right.
Let's let's ask a question here, Senator Feingold.
Why why would a president order the assassination of someone in the United States?
Let's really think this through for just a second and examine, no, no, no, just what this is.
This is do not frown at me in there.
This is really low rent, what this man has done here.
When a police chief Sends his officers to arrest or stop a killer.
Is he sending his officers to assassinate the killer?
If the killer himself is killed by the cops because he won't agree to be apprehended, has he been assassinated?
Does that make the police chief or the mayor or the governor assassins?
Does it mean that they ordered an assassination?
See, here's the to come up to even come up with this as an example of what this whole story is about.
Senator Feingold has to make you believe something like this has never happened and won't happen.
That conjuring up images and circumstances that are extreme and have nothing to do with intercepting Al-Qaeda communications to prevent attacks on our homeland is this is outrageous.
He won he wants to talk about this as I I misspoke.
As though assassinations have happened.
He just mentions this, throws it out there very casually.
Uh and and the president wants to order the assassination as though it's happened.
And it may have happened with President Bush.
Now, if you're going to if you're if you're going to voice such an example, he's got to try to make you believe this has happened.
But this has nothing to do with intercepting Al Qaeda or terrorist communications to prevent attacks on this country.
He has literally nothing to do with it.
Now this is he's not a dumb guy.
He is a third-term United States Senator.
He is not dumb.
There's a reason he's doing this, and it's disgusting.
The extremism that the far left continues to resort to and turn to surprises even me sometimes as to how whacked out it can get.
I think that Feingold and his buddies on the left actually think they are living in a police state.
I think they actually do.
I have come to the conclusion that they think that there may as well be Nazi swastika flags all over Washington, all over the country, because they think they're being spied on.
They think that they're being poisoned.
They think that this is a police state and that they are imprisoned.
And he's now talking about assassinations, presidential assassination.
The only government sanctioned assassination that I'm familiar with was the killing of the president of South Vietnam during the uh the John Kennedy administration.
But that didn't involve a U.S. citizen here at home.
And this business of assassinating a president, by the way, or the president assassinating an American citizen.
You have to understand how the audience that Feingold targets hears that.
Because these kooks that occupy the fringe of the Democratic Party are convinced.
Bush lied, they're calling him Hitler, Bush kills.
They are convinced it's possible.
He's giving voice to a fear that they actually have.
Now he clearly is running for president.
Uh, and and but they are definitely setting up impeachment if they win either the House or the Senate.
This censure movement is just the first stage of that, as I have mentioned to you on uh on several other occasions.
Bill and Anniston, Alabama, I'm glad you call.
Welcome to Open Line Friday.
Hey, Rush.
Uh if you look at Feingold's statement, he doesn't say the scholars didn't give him answers.
He he says that their answers were not credible to him.
Which really doesn't mean anything.
It just means he didn't believe their answers.
Well, I know, and that's another obfuscation.
This is another attempt to manipulate uh people and uh and their thinking.
Uh you're you're absolutely right.
Just because somebody can't come up with an answer.
It's it's the whole thing is is outrageous and ridiculous.
Um this is why, though, I I say this is uh not mainstream.
This is not something that the majority of the American people run around thinking about, that the president's going to assassinate American citizens or the president spying on them, or it is a fear that is totally occupying the minds of the American people on the left, the fringe.
Um, but I I just think is this is despicable.
This is this is absolutely despicable, and it's it's hard to characterize and describe the kind of rage and hatred these people have to be harboring day in and day out of this festering that would even lead them uh to this.
So he just throwing another bomb out there.
Uh I don't know how many people of the mainstream press are even talking about this aspect of it.
I mean, I have got the I've got the story that two stories have been written about this since the press conference, and none of them mentioned the word assassin.
I never heard this until I saw this soundbite and listen to it.
Have you seen ABC News' story on the new documents from uh Saddam Hussein's archives?
These documents discuss Bin Laden and weapons of mass destruction.
ABC has the story.
U.S. government releases papers from Saddam's reign.
And they editorial after after quoting elements, excerpts of the documents, they have a little paragraph after each one telling us why we shouldn't believe that it's true.
It's amazing.
And we'll share it with you.
We come back after this brief time out, my friends.
Do not venture far away.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have its open line Friday and the fastest week in media.
We go to Chicago.
This is Tom.
Nice to have you with us, sir.
Right.
Yes.
I can't believe what I've been hearing on a radio this morning.
Fine Gold.
You portrayed him as being a person that's not really that dumb.
He's been in Congress for three sessions, whatever, whatever.
How does he expect us to eat this stuff?
I mean, come on.
This guy is the Eli Whitney of spin machines.
You know, he's accusing other people of spinning.
I've never heard of anybody spinning as well as this guy.
He's trying to spin.
But it's such an intelligent, insulting uh conference that he just had.
I can't believe it.
Well, I know I when I say he's not stupid.
And by the way, uh, can I ask a question, ladies and gentlemen?
Was uh the Waco invasion uh a series of assassinations?
Well, no, let me just ask the question.
Since he's good bringing up the fact that presidents have the power to assassinate under this inherent power of the Constitution, Democrats have cited, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, uh Reagan, they've all cited this inherent power in the Constitution.
He's gone to this far out extreme that it includes the inherent power to assassinate American citizens.
All right.
Well, he's got to make you believe that something has that that that hasn't happened and won't happen is pretty much routine.
So let's ask him.
Was the Waco invasion a presidential assassin, assassination, a government assassin series of assassinations.
When I say fine gold is is is is not dumb.
It's a fine line.
Uh meaning that that he's intellectually, he's not dumb.
And politically, I know exactly what he's doing with this.
What this is not a uh when I say he's not dumb, I'm well, I'm I'm trying to further indict his uh his motive here.
This motive, folks, is horrible.
He's talking about inherent power to assassinate uh citizens, presidential power to assassinate citizens.
We're not even talking about this spy program has nothing to do.
It's it's all about detecting terrorist operations in this country.
That's all it is.
Look what he's taking it to.
And look who he's using it or how he's using it and to whom he's playing here.
He is this is, you know, I remember when I first started this program, and the critics, and they're still out there, of course, were accusing me of of um even Clinton tried to accused me of of the Oklahoma City bombing.
Bill Clinton, well, actually McCurry did it, um, uh, but it was the Clinton administration.
And they're out there saying that the anti-government rhetoric on this program, and the hate government rhetoric on this program inspired the people that went and blew up the Oklahoma.
I mean, uh that was outrageous.
And we called him on it, and then they they they they corrected him.
Oh, no, no, we didn't mean limball.
We're talking about the Michigan militia software, uh uh uh short wave radio network.
Come on.
That's what they said, Brian.
You weren't around then, but they blamed it on a Michigan militia soft uh short wave radio people.
They did have a little shortwave radio network up there, the Michigan militia, and we remember we got we got footage nightly on the news of these 57 80, 90-year-old guys in camouflage trudging through the woods as they're posing a great threat to the great government of Bill Clinton.
Well, this is what Feingold is actually doing when he talks it.
He's he's talking to people and he knows that they're demented.
But he doesn't care because he needs their support.
He knows they're demented.
He knows they think they live in a police state, that they've lost all their freedoms, that they have no freedom to move around.
They're being spied on.
And now all of a sudden he talks about in this center movement the fact, well, you know, the president can even run around and assassinate people, and nobody can tell me that he doesn't have that power.
Whoa my God.
The paranoia that he's ratcheting up already existing in these in these people's warped minds, this is dangerous stuff that he's doing here.
And it's irresponsible.
And I say when I say he's he's he's a smart guy, I I'm I'm I'm impugning the motive even more because he knows exactly what he's doing, and he knows how irresponsible it is.
And he knows how off-subject it is.
He's just trying to get a head start on the presidential nomination.
These people, I'm telling you, will wreck the country in order to get their power back, and then they'll do what they think they have to do to fix the country later, but they will do that.
They will tear this country apart.
They don't care what they have to do to get their power back, and this is just an example of it.
Here's Frank and Scratton, Pennsylvania.
Welcome, sir.
Hey Rush, how are you doing?
I'm just fine.
I've been hearing all this stuff about, you know, the um coming out about the NSA and stuff about you know Bush doing the sp uh the wiretaps and stuff.
What about all these other countries like you know, North Korea, Iran, Al Qaeda, who are spying on us through the same means, and the Democrats aren't doing anything about it.
They're not even bringing it up.
Well um well it doesn't help them to bring it up.
I mean, it it's kind of counterproductive to to what I mean, what President Bush and our military is trying to do.
We have people, you know, uh intercepting our electronic communications uh from other countries, and do they care about that?
Do they care that that might put our service members?
No, wait, don't you you have to you have to understand where we're coming from here.
Who you have to understand who these people are.
These people do you it may surprise you.
There I talked to David Horowitz.
I interviewed him for the next issue of the of the Limbo letter.
He's got he's got a book out the 101 worst college professors in the country, his crusade is to expose the socialism, the Marxism, and the liberalism among professors at institutions of higher learning.
He told me of the 400,000 higher institution professors, that there are at least 50,000 who are anti-America, who have chosen Al-Qaeda, who routinely root for this country's defeat openly, not in a clandestine way, and it may be more than 50,000.
You have to understand that in this country, we all think that we're part of the great United States of America, that we're all patriots and that we all um uh all love our country.
There are plenty of people in this country that hate it.
There are people in this country, and it's it I don't want to go into the reasons for it because we've done it for 18 years, but just the sum total is this country's guilty.
This country steals all of the resources of the world, and we use them up, and we are the reason that there are poor people, we are the reason there are oppressed people, we are the oppressors, we are the imperialists, we deserved to get hit on 9-11.
We deserve to have our military sabotage.
We deserve to have our own communications listen into.
It's unfair that a nation should be as powerful and rich as we are, because the only way it could have happened is if we've stolen it from the rest of the world.
And now we are destroying the world with global warming with our own prosperity.
There are more people in this country who believe that than you would care to admit.
And so when you wonder, well, where's the concern for our they hope that we lose.
There are people in and and they are leftists, they are socialists, they are Democrats, they hope that we lose.
Now, I'm not they're not all Democrats, but what my point is they don't reside on the right.
They reside on the left and the left and a way out left and a far gone left, the insane left, lunatic fringe left.
They're way, way out there.
And the left, you know, it just keeps going all the way to infinity, and they're on their way to reaching it.
So i you have to, I think, have a credible understanding, and that's why when you have a United States senator start talking about the inherent power of a president to assassinate American citizens, it's gonna resonate with some people out there.
Mark my words.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back and continue in just a second.
Ray Davies and the Kinks.
Ray Davies passed away not long ago, but the music lives on.
We're back.
It's open line Friday, L Rushbaugh and the EIB network.
All right, ABC News.
New documents from Saddam Hussein's archives discuss bin Laden and weapons of mass destruction.
Following are the ABC News investigative unit summaries of four of the nine Iraqi documents from Saddam Hussein's government, which were released by the U.S. government on Wednesday.
The documents discuss Osama bin Laden, weapons of mass destruction, Al Qaeda, and more.
The full documents can be found at the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Office website and they give that web address.
And they say the document titles for the purposes of this story were added by ABC News.
So the first document that they excerpt, they have titled Osama bin Laden in the Taliban, and it's dated September 15th, 2001.
For those of you in Rio Linda, that's four days after the 9-11 attacks.
An Iraqi Intelligence Service document saying that their Afgh informant, who's only identified by a number, told them that the Afghani consul, Ahmed Dahastani, claimed the following in front of him.
One, that Osama bin Laden and the Taliban are in contact with Iraq, and that a group of Taliban and bin Laden group members visited Iraq.
That the U.S. has proof the Iraqi government and bin Laden's group agreed to cooperate to attack targets inside America.
That in case the Taliban and bin Laden's group turn out to be involved in these disruptive uh operations, the U.S. may strike Iraq and Afghanistan.
That the Afghan consul heard about the issue of Iraq's relationship with the bin Laden group while he was in Iran.
That's that's in the document.
Uh dated uh September 15, 2001.
The uh editor's note that ABC writes to accompany this excerpt says this.
The controversial claim that Osama bin Laden was cooperating with Saddam Hussein is an ongoing matter of intense debate.
While the assertions contained in this document clearly support the claim, the sourcing is questionable, i.e., an unnamed Afghan informant reporting on a conversation with another Afghan consul.
The date of the document, four days after 9-11, is worth noting, but without further corroboration, this document is of limited evidentiary value.
Okay, so forget it.
We're gonna publish what the note says.
We're gonna publish the excerpt.
What the hell with it?
The hell with what's in it, because we can't corroborate it.
Now these people have not exactly uh uh I'm some of the mainstream press themselves have not distinguished themselves with sourcing in recent years, ladies and gentlemen.
So now they question everything that's in this if if if this is if this is true, uh, and if these things can be substantiated, this is going to be a death of a thousand cuts to the Democratic Party.
It's it it it is.
Here's the next note.
Uh document dated July August 1999.
Correspondence regarding election campaigns in France.
This includes a document from the Iraqi Intelligence Service classified as uh secret, ordering the translation of important parts of a 1997 report about campaign financing laws in France.
It also includes a document from the foreign minister's office indicating the report was attached.
The attached translator report included very detailed information about all the regulations regarding financing of election campaigns in France.
The translation was done by somebody called Salam Abdul Kharim Mohammed.
Editor's note.
This is an intriguing document which suggests that Saddam's regime had a strong interest in the mechanics and legalities of financial contributions to French politicians.
Several former French politicians are implicated in receiving oil vouchers from Iraq under the UN oil for food program.
Well, we knew that.
Hell a whole world except the only people's names not on the list of bribes in the oil for food program were Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Bush, and Halliburton.
Everybody else was on the take.
Document dated March 23, 1997, hiding documents from the UN team.
A letter from the Iraqi intelligence service to directors and managers advising them to follow certain procedures in case of a search by the UN team, including removing correspondence with the atomic energy and military industry departments concerning the prohibited weapons.
Removing prohibited materials and equipment, including documents and catalogs and making sure to clear labs and storages of any traces of chemicals or biological materials that were previously used or stored.
Doing so through a committee which will decide whether to destroy the documents and removing files from computers.
Editor's note.
Because we're too stupid.
We don't have the brain power.
We don't have the ability, ladies and gentlemen, to read these documents and understand their relevance.
No ABC has to add an editor's note to each one.
And here's this one.
This document is consistent with the report of the special advisor to the director of central intelligence, which described a pattern of deception and concealment on the part of Saddam's government towards the UN inspectors in the mid to late nineties.
Hussein halted all cooperation with those inspectors and expelled them in October 1998.
Okay, so we can believe that one and we can believe that Saddam was trying to monkey around in the French electoral process.
But we can't believe we don't have enough evidence to believe the first note about Saddam's ties with Al Qaeda and the Taliban and Osama bin Laden.
Here's the final one.
Al Qaeda presence in Iraq.
Document dated August 2002.
A number of correspondences to check rumors that some members of Al Qaeda organization have entered Iraq.
Three letters say that this information can't be confirmed.
The letter on page seven, however, says that information coming from a trustworthy source indicates that subjects who are interested in dealing with al-Qaeda are in Iraq and have several passports.
The letter seems to be coming from or going to treble, a town on the Iraqi Jordanian border.
There's a little bit more to it.
The editor's note says this document indicates the Iraqis were aware of and interested in reports that members of Al Qaeda were present in Iraq in 2002.
The document does not support allegations that Iraq was colluding with Al Qaeda.
No, of course they wouldn't be collising.
Why would they be why you just it's impossible to imagine that?
Isn't it?
Al Qaeda is in Iraq.
It wouldn't be colluding.
Oh no!
Why what lame brain would ever form that conclusion?
What kind of warped brain process, neurological process must someone have to assume that?
You've got uh you've got Al Qaeda that hates America, you got Saddam it hated America, and they're in the same country.
But the fact that they could be colluding don't make me laugh.
Actually, I have a thought, folks.
I mean, these these Saddam Iraq documents are fascinating and all that, but I I think we need to change the focus.
Let's let's let's uh let's change the focus to uh Iran and the Democrats.
And let's let's let's start asking the Democrats what their plans are.
No, no, I don't care what their answer is.
We need to ask the question.
We know what the answer is going to be.
Get them on the record.
What are we going to do about Iran?
Does Iran have nuclear weapons?
How do you know?
Yes or no?
What are you willing to do about it?
What happens if you're wrong?
Let's uh because the Democrats they hope for a replay of Iraq on uh on Iran.
I think I think you know Iraq is what it is, Iran's the future.
Need to put some pressure on these people and ask them, just you know, what would you do about that?
Uh you guys want to run the country.
Uh what do you what do you think is going on with Iran?
How should we uh how should we deal with it?
Back in just a second.
▲
Export Selection