All Episodes
Previous Next
April 13, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:18
April 13, 2006, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 24-7 podcast.
You know, the Liberals are out there saying that we need to clean up a culture of corruption in a Republican Party in the House and the Senate.
You're basically gonna get rid of all these Republicans and conservatives.
I tell you, it's the other way around.
I think it's another bit of evidence today suggesting that it's time for a liberal house cleaning.
After all, Nancy Pelosi has failed, Dingy Harry has failed, the New York Times has failed.
They've all failed.
And they need some mass firings or at least mass resignations.
They failed to bury consumer confidence.
That's up again.
They failed to scare away any people at the retail sales level, uh retail sales way up again.
I'd say if if the uh if liberals and I saw some economic numbers.
Do you know the economy in in most ways expressed as statistics is better today than it was in 84 when Ronald Reagan, Ronaldus Magnus, won a 49-state landslide over Walter F. Mondo.
And they've been unable to talk it down.
They need if they're going to reclaim their birthright, folks, which is power, they better come up with some new gloom and doomers who can sell it.
Uh Mr. Snurdley came to me today, said he got an idea to fix the problem in Iran.
He's, I said, what is it?
He says, Send Jimmy Carter over there.
He's the architect of the mess in the first place.
Let him go over there.
We don't let him come back till he fixes it.
I said, the problem is if we send Jimmy Carter over to Iraq, his solution will be for us to disarm.
Uh they fix North Korea.
I mean, it's it that it's one of those moves you'd love to see.
Like just somebody suggests that illegal aliens cannot vote until they're citizens just to see the reaction.
Anyway, greetings, folks.
Great to have you here.
The EIB Network and El Rush Ball on a roll, ready to start three full hours of broadcast excellence.
And people have been asking me when is the when are the pictures from the Marine Corps then are gonna be?
Well, we put them up last night.
Uh there at Rushlimbaugh.com at the upper right-hand corner of the homepage.
You will uh you will see a link.
Uh, have you seen him, Mr. Snerdley?
I gotta tell you, I don't know what this is a Department of Defense photographer, and these are all cleared by uh the uh the Department of Defense.
I don't know what this guy put in his camera, but I I'm t I I look like a stud muffin in these pictures.
Wait till you see these pictures.
I don't know what he did, but uh they are no, it's not soft focus, HR.
I don't care about soft folk.
It that was not a digital trick.
These are these are the masters.
I haven't I haven't enhanced them, it didn't have done anything to him.
We just put them up as we got them.
There's no need to enhance them.
At any rate, the big news.
A new court filing by CIA leak defendant Louis Libby suggests that Libby has testified that Vice President Cheney never told him to reveal the identity of Valerie Wilson, the CIA employee.
And this filing also suggests that Libby, Vice President's former chief of staff, testified that neither President Bush nor anybody else told him to discuss Valerie Wilson either.
Now, this filing was uh released shortly before midnight last night, and it has a footnote which says that consistent with his grand jury testimony, Mr. Libby does not contend that he was instructed to make any disclosures concerning Ms. Wilson by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, or anyone else.
Now, what is going on here?
Uh we had the New York Times finally corrected the tsunami of hysteria that that they started last week, but they put the correction on page A17.
They call corrections editors' notes at the uh at the New York Times.
Now, what's what I what's really going on here, I think, is this.
You've got lawyers, Libby's lawyers say that the prosecutors trying to have it both ways.
Uh by playing up President Bush and Vice President Cheney's role in leaking intelligence on Iraq to reporters, but he is refusing to turn over evidence in the case.
Libby's lawyers continue to file motions.
Hey, we're in the discovery phase here.
Let me see what you got.
Let me see the evidence.
And Fitzgerald said, Nope, I'm not, this is classified.
I'm not showing you this stuff.
So he's filing all these motions, Fitzgerald is.
And I thought this was a perjury case.
Here's you know, the the the what's going on here, I think, I think that uh the special prosecutor, uh, Mr. Fitzgerald, wants his case to be much bigger than Just a process case.
I think he wants his case to be bigger than just somebody lying to him during a grand jury testimony when he doesn't file any charge based on the original investigation.
He's trying to make this case for whatever reason uh more than lying before a grand jury about a crime that never happened.
This is what's this is what mind-boggling about this.
You got Libby charged with lying before a grand jury about a crime that never happened, and so really all you've got there is a process uh case, but the independent counsel keeps releasing these these these motions that bring pre-war intelligence, and what did the White House did?
It's almost as though he's a it's a foregone conclusion that trying to refute the lies told by Joe Wilson is a crime.
And who was involved in this?
And that's not what this case started out to be.
It looks to me like that this is a an attempt here to take this case into a matter of pre-war intelligence and politicizing it.
Because I mean, your independent counsel, your Patrick Fitzgerald, who wants to preside over a perjury case.
You know, well, I mean, that big deal.
I mean, the original investigation pointed up no evidence that was worthy of pointing to anybody that might be guilty.
So there was no charge on the original investigation.
And now look what we're doing.
We're putting all this gobbledygook out uh uh in the news media that is wrong and it's incorrect, and it gets it it that creates the usual drive-by media uh hit.
You know, they come in, they lob their bullets in, and they start tearing things up, and then they head on down the road after a while, and a week later, other people have to come in and clean up the mess, including Mr. Fitzgerald himself.
Oh, wait a minute, I had a sentence in there that was wrong, corrects it a week later, but the damage is done.
So Libby's people are responding by striking saying, hey, look, this guy, the prosecutor is trying to have it both ways.
I mean, he's he's playing up in all these court filings what Bush and Cheney did in leaking intelligence on Iraq to reporters, but whatever evidence he's got, he won't share with my client and us.
And then the next thing you know, uh we're looking now at something way beyond what was intended.
I don't know.
Byron, your writing about this today suggests that uh the independent counsel may be losing control of the case.
I don't think that's what's going on, Ike.
He's trying to make it bigger than it is.
Um I think he wants it to be historic.
The thing about this that is flummoxing to me is with all the evidence there is that's out there and as widely read as Mr. Fitzgerald's is is reported to be.
You have to know that Joe Wilson is a liar.
The 9-11 commission has has refuted his lies.
They've pointed him up, his newspaper columns, these things that he said about yellow cake in Niger, he actually came back with evidence that there was an attempt to purchase yellow cake by Iraq.
Christopher Hitchens is doing some great work in this in documenting the efforts of the the that the Iraq was making.
And the it the idea that that the independent counsel has chosen sides with Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame, and that there is no question of their honesty and veracity.
It's one of the things in this case that has always confounded me.
Now, I know that there are people who know a lot more than we do about this.
You know, we're we're prisoners to whatever these court filings say, and we're prisoners to however they're treated by the drive-by media.
We can go talk to lawyers and experts and try to try to analyze what's put out there, but I still don't understand how you can just embrace Joe Wilson as a prosecutor and assume that he is the victim.
He and his wife are the victims here, and you're on an appointed mission here to avenge the wrong that was done to them.
Here you had a guy who was purposely trying to undermine the administration's war in Iraq.
And the administration knew it.
He was telling lies about it, and so the administration decided to fill some reporters in on where he was wrong.
And that now is becoming a crime.
If this case is headed where it looks to me like it's headed, we're going to have a political trial on the pre-war intelligence.
And uh, and and and is there a crime there?
I mean, this is that's how I see it.
Somebody out there knows more than more than more than I do about it's gonna have to uh clue me in.
I gotta take a quick time out.
We'll be back and continue here in just a minute.
It's the fastest three hours in media, it's the fastest week in media.
We're already at Thursday.
Oh, I'm I'm uh I'm going to the United 93 screening uh today.
Yeah, I can't wait for that.
They released the tape yesterday, the Massawi trial.
Or was it the Masauli trial he released?
Yeah, it was yeah.
Cockpit tape.
And uh you know, there's an interesting piece.
Bill Tucker, William Tucker has a piece, the American Spectator today that says, you know, I don't like what we're doing here in this Massaui trial.
We're basically, we're basically going to try to put this guy to death because um uh he uh he advanced his Fifth Amendment uh argument of not to self-incriminate himself.
He's basically, I've made this point in this program.
I couldn't believe it, by the way, when the government made this charge, just in the in the strict sense of things, Massaui is actually on trial because he didn't tell anybody that 9-11 was gonna happen.
Now uh in the take take Massawi out of it.
If this is a pure domestic case, if it was any kind of crime, you're not obligated to tell anybody you've committed a crime.
That has to be proven.
And you cannot be punished for not telling somebody you committed a crime.
You can be punished if you lie about it, but he didn't tell them.
And they didn't ask him specifically, and then we we weren't at we weren't well now forget this is terrorism for this.
It points up why you can't try these guys.
It points out why this is it's a lousy thing to do to bring terrorists and acts of war into the courtroom.
But beyond all that, the the notion that the government can come along and fry you because you didn't tell them what was going to happen.
Uh well, go to the Constitution and find you're not required to.
It's not a punishable offense.
There's the Fifth Amendment.
You don't have to incriminate yourself.
It's a fundamental bedrock.
Yes, I don't tell me I don't get it.
I've just I find it above and beyond that.
And I'm not defending Massaui here.
Don't don't don't go off half crazy in there.
I'm not defending Massawi at all, but from the moment I heard that the foundational building blocks of the prosecution against Massaui were, well, if he would have told us we could have stopped 9-11.
Well, screw you.
It's your job to find out.
You're the CIA, you're the FBI, you're the government.
Find out about it.
You had it on his computer, but you wouldn't look at it because you couldn't get a warrant.
Pfizer, because he hadn't committed a crime.
All he was doing was taking flight lessons.
He had not told it.
He gone in there and said, Well, I don't want to know how to land it and I don't care about taking it off.
I just want to fly it once up there.
Raised a red flag, but it wasn't enough of a crime.
Uh probable cause to open his computer.
If we'd have opened his computer in August of 2001, all the contact that he'd had with the 19 other hijackers was there.
And so now because he didn't tell us, because he didn't he did he didn't make us competent in our ability to investigate something, we're gonna fry the guy.
I think I ought to be fried.
Don't misunderstand on general principles.
But you know, I've I've just I've had a a I've had just some experience with all this.
You know, and I'm watching what's happening with Scooter Libby here.
Uh and and you have when no evidence in the original charge, the original purpose of Pat Fitzgerald was to go out there and find out if somebody leaked the name of a CIA agent who was covert after all those two years of investigation, Ziltch Zero Nada.
And Fitzgerald in his press conference said, I didn't even really look at that.
That we didn't uh we whether she's covert or not.
Bottom line is got to have somebody pay the price for this two years, and it's poor old scooter because he's in there lying during the grand jury during the process of the investigation.
Now, I'm not defending lying or perjury, don't misunderstand, but in terms of the original mandate versus where we're going with this now.
We're gonna have looks like a big trial on pre-war intelligence.
We're gonna politicize it.
We're gonna find out if the administration, the big bad federal government, was targeting poor old innocent Joe Wilson and his innocent, loving, devoted wife.
And if that I mean, this is it's just um it's crazy.
To me, it just it just seems way off.
Now, you wonder, you say, how can this happen?
Well, it can happen because the uh the independent counsel, Mr. Fitzgerald, was given this wide latitude by the acting attorney John, I think it was James Comey, who's a very good friend, and then Comey said, uh do what you have to do here.
Uh and so the the the universe was there for Fitzgerald to choose from.
And it's clear he just doesn't want to be presiding over a perjury trial in a case where there was no crime.
It's gotta be bigger than that.
Uh, and so he is attempting to make it so.
Uh, let us go to Durham, North Carolina.
We got somebody from Durham on the phone who doesn't want to talk about rape.
Uh Bob, welcome to the program.
Nice to have you with us.
Hey, Russia, it's good to be with you.
Thank you, sir.
Yes, uh, I I live about five blocks away from that incident, but uh that's not uh why I call.
I called about uh something I heard on the radio today that the uh president of uh Iran was making uh was reinforcing a point that you often make about uh the difference between the effects of diplomacy versus uh having a credible military force.
He is uh he is not gonna be uh deterred from uh developing uh nuclear weapons.
And for hell or high water.
And uh and and they keep talking to him, and he just keeps shrugging it off.
Well, look at uh num number one, uh the there is obviously no fear of our military, otherwise uh Mahmud and the Iranians would not be doing what they're doing.
It was subject of our morning update today, a video podcast as well.
Uh with our troops on two of Iran's borders in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I don't care, they're not intimidated because they know that there's been enough unrest and dissension and and uh uh.
Well, uh searching a little stronger.
They know that the Democratic Party in this country is their ally.
The Democratic Party and the American left and the Kooks have sufficiently seen to it that there's no national unity here on the war in Iraq or the war on terror, and that there's no way the people of this country are gonna sit back and watch us go after Iran.
Not not if it's ever announced in advance that we do the debate like we did leaving it leading into Iraq, but more than that.
We know the diplomatic doesn't work.
It's taken us and gotten us where we are with old Mahmud.
Uh, and we let Mohammed Albera die, we let the French, we let the Europeans do their diplomacy.
I have mentioned, I don't know how many times we got a great side-by-side way to compare the way to deal with these two countries.
You got Iraq and you got Iran.
On the left side is Iraq.
There are no longer whatever else is going on there, they are no longer a threat to that region.
Nothing happening in Iraq on behalf of the Iraqi government threatens the region.
And we've dealt with that militarily.
Go to Iran.
What do we do?
We do diplomatically, they've got nukes.
They've got it, they've at least they've enriched uranium.
Here's the scary part.
This guy, Mahmud Ahmadinejad, actually believes that he will rule and govern Iraq during a clash of civilizations.
There are analysts who believe that he is spoiling for a fight because he doesn't think that we have the guts to engage in one, and he doesn't think we have the ability to win one.
And who can blame him when you open the newspaper or open your average book or read a uh uh magazine, watch television in this country, and you watch it how the president and the war effort are constantly impugned and derided.
Who could blame old Mahmood for thinking we don't have the uh uh the will or the ability?
So there are some people who are really concerned about this that Mahmood he he he thinks that uh Israel ought to be relocated uh back to Germany or wherever he wants to put it.
Uh he thinks all this is biblical or uh uh uh uh in the holy Quran.
And he thinks that it's his time.
I mean, this guy's is he's insane.
Carl Rov's right.
Carl, we're dealing with an irrational, unstable lunatic.
And uh and so there's a great piece on this today by Amir Taheri in the uh in the New York Post.
Let me share with you a couple excerpts here while I have time.
As the diplomatic maneuvers to pressure Iran to reign in its nuclear ambitions continue, the message one hears in policy circles in most capitals is simple.
The key is Moscow.
Of all the powers involved in this showdown with the Islamic Republic, only Russia is in a position to tip the balance between a peaceful resolution or war.
Here's why.
Russia is building Iran's first and so far only nuclear power plant near Boucher.
It could slow or suspend the project Pending a diplomatic resolution of the crisis.
Such a move could strengthen the hands of those with the Tehran establishment that want a moratorium on uranium processing to prevent tensions from further escalating.
And Russia has another card to play.
It is proposed to set up a special uranium enrichment project for Iran to cover the needs of the Boucher plant for its full 37-year lifespan.
An agreement now in place has Russia providing the plant's fuel for its first ten years.
To sweeten it for the Tehran leadership, the Russian proposal could be modified to have part of the enrichment process done in Iranian facilities and with the participation of Iranian scientists and technicians.
May lead nowhere, though, because as I said, some analysts suspect that the president over there, Mahmood, may actually want a military conflict with the U.S. as the opening shot in his promised clash of civilizations.
More details on how Russia may be the key to this.
I'll give you all those details when we get back from this brief break.
Talent on loan from God.
America's anchor man guiding light through times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, tumult, chaos, torture, humiliation, despair, and even the good times.
800 282-2882.
Did you see that CNN finally caught up to this story on John Conyers?
This is two months.
Was it two months ago that we did this story?
This was originally, it was in, I think it was in the Hill newspaper, about how it was two people in Conyers' staff had filed complaints because he was making them babysit in this.
But I thought only illegals uh babysat.
I thought it was babysitting with jobs that uh Americans won't do anymore, but he was using his uh his his staff members.
Two former staff members at Conyers say that the longtime Detroit Congressman made them babysit his kids, run errands, and work on political campaigns while they were on his payroll.
Can't do that.
We have audio sound bites coming up.
I want to finish Mr. Amir Taheri's analysis of the Iranian nuclear situation and how Russia, in his mind, is the key.
Now, after discussing the fact that uh Mahmood Ahmadinejad is is is maybe crazy enough to actually provoke a war with the U.S. because he believes that there will be a class of civilizations during his time, and he doesn't think we have the will to fight it nor the ability to win it.
Mr. Tahiri says even then Russia could uh either prevent such a clash or hasten it by vetoing or voting for a strong resolution in the UN Security Council.
Now the Russian position there is crucial because China, which also has a veto, would not be prepared to isolate itself by siding with Iran alone if Russia ends up siding with the U.S. If Russia vetoes, therefore so will China if R and that isolates Tehran.
If Russia doesn't veto, the most that China might do to please Iran is abstain.
The Bush administration knows all this.
And that's why it's starting to build pressure on Russia ahead of the G eight summit this July.
Russian President Putin is to host this summit.
The American calculation is that Putin, having won the presidency of the G-8 for Russia for the first time, is unlikely to start his tenure by splitting the group to please the Iranian mullahs.
Yet Putin will uh won't want to make an unambiguous choice between Tehran and Washington.
Russia needs the Islamic Republic for a number of reasons, so it's a dicey.
It's a real dicey situation, but according to um uh Amir Taheri, uh Russia holds the key here in perhaps slowing down the Iranian move toward nuclear weapons and stopping this lunatic from actually provoking a war.
Uh he concludes this way.
There is one more, and according to Russian analysts, perhaps more important factor.
Putin can never be sure that come the crunch, Washington will not strike a deal with Tehran itself, uh, leaving Moscow in the lurch economically, such as what we've done in North Korea.
I mean, that we're holding out the possibility that we, okay, in order to stabilize these people, we will help them build their nuclear power plants, but we, unlike the way the Clintons and Carter did it, will not see to it they can take what we give them and turn it into nuclear weapons.
And if we do that, that might cause some outrage in this country, would it ice Russia out of the situation, and then they have a uh a far more economic need dealing with Iran.
And they don't want Iran to go to war either because we're gonna tear them up.
They need they have existing military contracts with Iran, and they need to keep Iran functioning somehow rather than at uh at at war.
Uh for those who remain uh uh valuable.
Robert in Seattle, I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Well, thank you, Diddles from the Blue Coast.
You bet I just wanted to say I I think you're right on about what Fitzgerald's doing, and the unfortunate part is he is turning into the lead investigator for John Conyers, who has made no bones about if the Democrats retake the House and he becomes the judiciary uh chairman, he will open in an impeachment investigation regarding the pre-war intelligence.
Uh oh, I know there's no question.
I think they're already doing some stuff like that behind the scenes.
There's no question.
I I didn't uh I didn't have time to get to the sound bites yesterday.
Cookie, maybe if you could get me the sound bites from Barbara Boxer and who else, I forget who from yesterday that made it clear that their their objective is to get Bush.
They want to impeach and use the word, but they want to get Bush.
Then there are more and more Democrats signing up now for this censure movement of fine goals.
They want to get Bush, they want subpoena power.
That's why they want to win the House.
You people out there think they want to win the House to start fixing the country according to their aims.
I'm sure there's a little bit of that too.
But there's not much to fix when you get down to it.
When you get down to brass tax, there's not a whole lot to fix.
Uh we are not in an economic malaise.
We are not in dire economic straits.
We've got a rosy future where the United States of America, they're the ones that have tried to make everybody think about it doom and gloom, and they had they're going to need some new salesmen because people aren't buying into it.
They want to get Bush.
They want to destroy Bush, and that's that's what they will do.
Now, in this effort to do so, LA Times.
You know, we I told you this yesterday is why we are on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
What I told you yesterday just makes it in the New York or the LA Times today.
It's about the special election for Duke Cunningham's Republican seat, San Diego area, California, 50.
Voters replacing the disgraced former rep Randy Cunningham were swayed more by party labels and name recognition and boiling issues like corruption and immigration analysts said Wednesday.
As a result, two familiar faces, the Democrat Francine Busby and Republican Brian Billbray will probably face each other in a June runoff that for all intents could look like a lot like uh the Tuesday's free-for-all.
Although Busby outdistanced Bill Bray, she still faces an uphill fight in a district where Republicans have a 44 to 30 percent registration age.
Democrat leaders claim victory.
Yes, there was a moral victory and so forth.
But Republicans said that Busby's failure to win more than 50 percent of the vote and claim the seat outright showed the limits of the Democrat anti-incumbent drive.
If Democrats can't win on a corruption message here, they can't win on it anywhere, said Carl Forty, a spokesman for the GOP's congressional campaign committee.
And you would that would have to be right.
Uh the culture corruption is not going to take them anywhere.
Delays out of the picture, but if they can't win this seat, they're gonna need to win seven seats like this.
They're gonna need to they're gonna need to take seven seats currently held by Republicans.
And if they can't win this one, and they're and they're looking at this one, oh man.
Well they thought this was gonna be a trend, but she didn't get she didn't even get 44%.
She got 43.9% of the vote.
There's still 10,000 uh right-in ballots that have yet to be uh counted, but it's it's it's uh they're not all gonna go one way.
I mean, you've got all these candidates.
Uh the reason the Republican vote was less than Busby's was that there are 14 Republicans on this ballot.
So if you add up the Republican percentage in the vote, it was 53 percent.
She got 40 Democrats are like 40, 46.247 percent, something like that.
Uh this does not bode well for their effort to retake the House.
And I have tried, I have tried over and over to tell all of you don't go negative on me here.
Don't go doom and gloom.
There was a piece by the editor in the American Spectator yesterday, Quen Hillier.
And I love Quinn Hillier.
I mean, don't misunderstand, but it was all about woe is us.
And it was all based on the political situation for the Republicans, or most of it was.
And it's just not the case.
The Democrat There are two political parties here, and while our side looks to be totally inept, and looks to be unlike what we wanted them to be after we elected them all these past elections.
The Democratic Party is in the biggest mess of its life.
They don't talk about it in the drive-by media because they A don't know it.
They don't think they have any problems other than your stupidity or voting machines or hanging chads or other mechanisms where uh people cheat.
They don't think they have a problem.
They and they're still focused as they always are on.
What do we have to do to get Democrats back in power?
What do the Democrats have to do to get themselves back in power?
Can anybody recommend to me?
The Democrats are doing one thing to cause people to vote for them.
You can't.
They're not reaching out.
That's why they need felons.
That's why they need these illegals.
And uh because they they're not they're not inspiring anybody.
Republicans may not be either, but but um uh w what I'll tell you what.
One thing people in the Republican side have is an absolute um visceral disgust for the Democrats today.
And not just about what they stand for, what their policies are, but about their behavior.
The Democrats have done nothing in the last five years worthy of being rewarded other than by their already locked-in fringe kook base.
Take a brief time out of comeback, we'll go with the audio sound by CNN.
Paul Azan now did an investigation of John Conyers accusing uh or being accused of using his staff to babysit at two-month-old story and CNN, oh, they've got tapes, they've got to hear this.
We'll get it.
Right, I get to it right after this.
Be patient.
Okay, we're back having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Rush Limbaugh, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
So get this John Conyers stuff here in a second.
I want to hear I want you to hear Barbara Boxer Tuesday night on Hardball on MSNBC, just just to uh show you that that what what these people are up to is getting Bush, and they don't care what else they wreck.
And and it she also in these bites as three of them will demonstrate just how uh uh they are these people are not ready for prime time when it comes to national security.
They just can't be trusted.
First question.
Do you think uh do you think he's purposely telling what he knows not to be true?
AB he's being led by advisors who are ruthless and just want to get their policy forward, talking about Bush here, uh uh, which we've seen before in American history, truth don't always win the argument, or is he basically just confused?
I don't know the answer.
Chris, what I believe now is the only way to check this president.
If you believe in checks and balances, you've got to bring back the Democrats in charge.
Now we're not perfect, that's for sure.
But I think the American people should give us a chance, because this guy's on a runaway train.
Now, as you talked before, uh, maybe toward another war, yeah, uh, before we've even completed this mission, and it's just he needs to be stopped.
Yeah, and Matthew says, Well, what is your rudimentary basic thought right now about the possibility of Iran developing a nuclear weapon five to ten months from now?
What should the U.S. policy right now be?
My first thought is you take a deep breath.
Now I'm on a bill that would begin sanctions on Iran if they keep going down this path.
Stop the tape.
That's really gonna stop the tape.
That's really gonna matter.
The Jimmy Carter argument.
Sanctions, yeah, we're I'm on a bill.
We're gonna be tough.
We're gonna put sanctions on these.
She's clueless, folks.
To where we were early in the Iraq situation.
We have to lead the world.
The trouble is we have a president who is being shunned by this world.
If you look at Iran, if you look at India, all those countries, it is a matter of personal pride.
And it is a matter of strength.
And it is a matter of telling the people we have common enemies.
And I don't think there's any problem with having different scenarios.
But let me just say that we might use nuclear weapons against Iran is stunning to me.
Yeah, the fact that we might use nobody's ever by the way, uh the the did the attack did did this story say well, yeah, no, nuclear weapons take out their nukes is still on the table, but but uh it it never it doesn't matter because still to Barbara Boxer, the biggest threat in the world is George W. Bush.
Not the fact that Iran is getting them, not the fact they got a wacko leader who wants a battle, apparently, wants this clash of civilizations, wants to establish militant Islam as the dominant political ideological force in the world anyway, is of no matter to her, and here's why.
Next question.
Any chance your Senate, even though it's a Republican dominated Senate, would issue a resolution saying, Mr. President, we don't believe your commander-in-chief authority extends to attacking Iran.
Chris, we need a new president.
Someone who knows the history of the world, someone who can use backdoor channels to avoid this.
I mean, my people, when I go in the supermarket, everywhere I go.
If I walk through the case, we got two and a half years with this elected president.
Yes, we do.
And there's only one thing to do.
Check him.
Check him at the polls on 06.
Give us democratic control so we can stop the worst things from happening and get this country moving in the right direction again.
Okay, so that's that's who they are.
Um I just wanted you to hear this.
We need a new president.
We can't Matthew, wait a minute, you got two and a half years to go.
She let the cat out of the bag.
Their objective is to get this guy.
They're going to get this guy.
They've long passed the point of being rational about this.
Uh Jack and Alfred of Georgia, welcome to the EIB network.
Nice to have you with us.
Thank you.
How are you, Rush?
Uh, good, sir.
Good.
Um, my comment had to do with your observation that there was some uh indefinite nature to the charges that were filed against Masoui.
Uh I believe that he was clearly a conspiracy to commit murder.
He was an accessory before the fact.
He possessed knowledge of a veritable certainty of the acts occurring.
And I do not know the actual indictments placed against him, but it seems to me that if the prosecutor had been uh properly motivated, this would have been his course of action.
I do agree with you, however, that this should never have gone to a criminal court system.
It should have been handled by a military tribunal.
Your thoughts?
Yeah, well, you know, the the the the at the time this had remembered this is pre-9-11 when all this discovery of Massaui is g is taking place.
Uh and I'm convinced we knew about these 19 other hijackers pre-9-11 because the day after 9-11 we were able to put their pictures all up on the television.
We knew who they were, and we knew how they had bought their plane tickets that day.
We knew everything about it, where they'd lived, where they'd taken flight lessons and all that.
Uh I don't I think of all the data that was on Massawi's computer when he finally looked at it, the one thing he didn't know was the date.
He didn't know the date, but he knew something.
He knew the targets.
He knew it was the White House, and he said that his target was either Capitol or the White House.
Now, um uh William Tucker today and the American Spectator says I hate spoil of fun, but I really don't see the point of the courtroom ritual being conducted right now about Massawi.
He's facing the death penalty for his role in September 11th.
What was his role?
He was the only hijacker that didn't make it.
He was picked up by the FBI in Minneapolis in August of 01 for an expired visa after arousing the suspicion of flight instructors.
So what's his crime?
Massawi is charged with being responsible for September 11th because he didn't tell anybody it was going to happen.
His silence led to the murder of 3,000 people, is the prosecution argument.
If he had told the FBI, the World Trade Center in Depending on wouldn't have happened.
Maybe so, but that's not the point.
Point is why didn't anybody ask him?
And that's my what do you mean we sit around, we wait for criminals to turn themselves in?
When does this happen?
It doesn't happen.
Not certainly not enough to make it worthy of an official policy.
Yeah, we're gonna solve crime because we're gonna wait for the bad guys to report before they do it.
No, the FBI and the CIA is supposed to find this stuff out, and they didn't ask him.
The answer is simple.
Masao they didn't ask him because Massawi was under no obligation to tell anybody anything.
Once he was arrested, he was protected by his Fifth Amendment rights, which say, nor shall anyone be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.
But that's not the same thing, you may respond.
He wasn't being asked to testify against himself.
He was only talking to the FBI.
Sorry, makes no difference.
U.S. Supreme Court decided Miranda versus Arizona 66.
Criminals, suspects in criminal cases are under no obligation to talk to the police about anything.
You have the right to remain silent, the uh saying goes.
So, you know, I the end result here is is you know favorable, but the guy the guy is on trial because he didn't tell us what he and his buddies had planned.
I just find it amazing.
I'm sorry, just do.
Boy, I don't know where the time's gone.
First hour is in the can.
The uh tapes on there over over the way the museum uh warehouse where all the artifacts are being kept in secret.
▲
Export Selection