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.
We basically got to 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.
Retail sales way up again.
I'll tell you, if liberals, and I saw some economic numbers, do you know the economy 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.
Mr. Snerdley came to me today.
He said, he got an idea to fix the problem in Iran.
I said, what is it?
He said, 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.
They fix North Korea.
I mean, 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 Rushball on a roll, ready to start three full hours of broadcast excellence.
And people have been asking me, when are the pictures from the Marine Corps dinner going to be?
Well, we put them up last night.
They're at rushlimbaugh.com at the upper right-hand corner of the homepage.
You will see a link.
Have you seen it, Mr. Snerdley?
I got to tell you, I don't know what this is a Department of Defense photographer, and these are all cleared by the Department of Defense.
I don't know what this guy put in his camera, but I look like a stud muffin in these pictures.
Wait, will you see these pictures?
I don't know what he did, but they are.
No, it's not soft focus, H.I.
I don't care about soft folk.
That was not a digital trick.
These are the masters.
I haven't enhanced them.
We haven't done anything to them.
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 Lewis 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 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?
We had the New York Times finally corrected the tsunami of hysteria that they started last week, but they put the correction on page A17.
They call corrections editor's notes at the New York Times.
Now, what's really going on here, I think, is this.
You've got lawyers.
Libby's lawyers say that the prosecutor is trying to have it both ways 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 says, 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, what's going on here?
I think that the special prosecutor, 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, more than lying before a grand jury about a crime that never happened.
This is what's 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 case.
But the independent counsel keeps releasing these motions that bring pre-war intelligence.
And what did the White House did?
It's almost as though 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 an attempt here to take this case into a matter of pre-war intelligence and politicizes it.
Because, I mean, you're independent counsel, you're Patrick Fitzgerald, who wants to preside over a perjury case.
You know, I mean, that's a 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 in the news media that is wrong and it's incorrect and it gets, it creates the usual drive-by media 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 starting to say, hey, look, this guy, the prosecutor, is trying to have it both ways.
I mean, 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, we're looking now at something way beyond what was intended.
I don't know.
Byron York writing about this today suggests that the independent counsel may be losing control of the case.
I don't think that's what's going on.
I think he's trying to make it bigger than it is.
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 is reported to be, you have to know that Joe Wilson is a liar.
The 9-11 Commission has refuted his lies.
They've pointed him up his newspaper columns, these things that he said about Yellow Cake and 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 and documenting the efforts that Iraq was making.
And The idea that the independent counsel has chosen sides with Joe Wilson and Valerie Playman and that there is no question of their honesty and veracity is 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.
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 analyze what's put out there.
But I still don't understand how you can just embrace Joe Wilson as the 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 is there a crime there?
I mean, this is, that's how I see it.
Somebody out there knows more than I do about it.
It's going to have to clue me in.
I got to 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 going to the United 93 screening today.
Yeah, I can't wait for that.
They released the tape yesterday, the Masawi trial.
Or was it the Masawi trial they released?
Yeah, it was, yeah.
Cockpit tape.
And, 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 Masawi trial.
We're basically going to try to put this guy to death because he advanced his Fifth Amendment argument of not to self-incriminate.
So he 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 strict sense of things, Masawi is actually on trial because he didn't tell anybody that 9-11 was going to happen.
Now, take Masawi 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 weren't at, we weren't.
Well, now, forget this is terrorism.
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 notion that the government can come along and fry you because you didn't tell them what was going to happen.
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, don't tell me I don't get it.
I've just, I find it above and beyond that.
And I'm not defending Masawi here.
Don't go off half crazy in there.
I'm not defending Masawi at all.
But from the moment I heard that the foundational building blocks of the prosecution against Masawi 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, FISA, 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, probable cause to open his computer.
If we open his computer in August of 2001, all the contact that he had had with the 19 other hijackers was there.
And so now, because he didn't tell us, because he didn't make us competent in our ability to investigate something, we're going to fry the guy.
I think the guy ought to be fried.
Don't misunderstand on general principles.
But, you know, I've just, I've had a, a, a, I've had just some experience with all this, you know, and I'm watching what's happening with Scooter Libby here.
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, Zilch Zero Nada.
And Fitzgerald in his press conference said, I didn't even barely look at that, that we didn't, 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 going to have, it looks like a big trial on pre-war intelligence.
We're going to politicize it.
We're going to 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 happened, I mean, this is, it's just, it's crazy.
To me, it just seems way off.
Now, you want to, you say, how can this happen?
Well, it can happen because the independent counsel, Mr. Fitzgerald, was given this wide latitude by the acting attorney, I think it was James Comey, who's a very good friend.
And then Comey said, do what you have to do here.
And so 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 got to be bigger than that.
And so he's attempting to make it so.
Let me just go to Durham, North Carolina.
We got somebody from Durham on the phone who doesn't want to talk about rape.
Bob, welcome to the program.
Nice to have you with us.
Hey, Rush, it's good to be with you.
Thank you, sir.
Yes, I live about five blocks away from that incident, but that's not why I called.
I called about something I heard on the radio today that the president of Iran was making, was reinforcing a point that you often make about the difference between the effects of diplomacy versus having a credible military force.
He is not going to be deterred from developing nuclear weapons for hell or high water.
And they keep talking to him, and he just keeps shrugging it off.
Well, look, number one, there is obviously no fear of our military.
Otherwise, Mahmoud and the Iranians would not be doing what they're doing.
It was subject of our morning update today, video podcast as well.
With our troops on two of Iran's borders in Afghanistan and Iraq, they don't care.
They're not intimidated because they know that there's been enough unrest and dissension and searching for 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 going to sit back and watch us go after Iran.
Not if it's ever announced in advance and we do the debate like we did 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 Mahmoud.
And we let Mohamed Al-Barra 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.
At least they've enriched uranium.
Here's the scary part.
This guy, Mahmoud 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 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 Mahmoud for thinking we don't have the will or the ability?
So there are some people who are really concerned about this, that Mahmoud, he thinks that Israel ought to be relocated back to Germany or wherever he wants to put it.
He thinks all this is biblical in the Holy Quran.
And he thinks that it's his time.
I mean, this guy is insane.
Karl Rohd's right.
We're dealing with an irrational, unstable lunatic.
And so there's a great piece on this today by Amir Tahiri 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 rein 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 10 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, Mahmoud, 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 anchorman and 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?
Was it two months ago that we did this story?
was originally i think it was in the hill newspaper about how so two people in conyers staff had filed complaints because he was making them babysit in this but i thought only illegals uh babysat and 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 him babysit his kids run errands and work on political campaigns while they were on his payroll Can't do that.
We have audio soundbites coming up.
I want to finish Mr. Amir Tahiri's analysis of the Iranian nuclear situation and how Russia, in his mind, is the key.
Now, after discussing the fact that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 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 either prevent such a clash or hasten it by vetoing or voting for a strong resolution in the U.N. Security Council.
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, and that isolates Tehran.
If Russia doesn't veto, the most that China might do to please Iran is abstain.
Now, the Bush administration knows all this.
And that's why it's starting to build pressure on Russia ahead of the G8 summit this July.
Russian President Putin is to host this summit.
The American calculation is that Putin, having won the presidency of the G8 for Russia for the first time, is unlikely to start his tenure by splitting the group to please the Iranian mullahs.
Yet Putin 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 Amir Tahari, Russia holds the key here in perhaps slowing down the Iranian move toward nuclear weapons and stopping this lunatic from actually provoking a war.
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, leaving Moscow in the lurch economically, such as what we've done in North Korea.
I mean, 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, which would ice Russia out of the situation, and then they have a far more economic need dealing with Iran.
And they don't want Iran to go to war either because they're going to tear them up.
They have existing military contracts with Iran, and they need to keep Iran functioning somehow rather than at war for those to remain valuable.
Robert in Seattle, I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Well, thank you, Ditto's from the Blue Coast.
I just wanted to say 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 chairman, he will open an impeachment investigation regarding the pre-war intelligence.
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 didn't have time to get to the soundbites yesterday.
Cookie, maybe if you get me the soundbites from Barbara Boxer and who else, I forget who from yesterday that made it clear that their objective is to get Bush.
They want to impeach.
She didn't use the word.
They want to get Bush.
And 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.
We are not in an economic malaise.
We are not in dire economic straits.
We've got a rosy future with the United States of America.
They're the ones that have tried to make everybody think about it doom and gloom, and 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 what they will do.
Now, in this effort to do so, the LA Times, you know, I told you this yesterday is why we are on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
What I told you yesterday just makes it 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 Bill Bray, will probably face each other in a June runoff that, for all intents, could look like a lot like Tuesday's free-for-all.
Although Busby outdistanced Bill Bray, she still faces an uphill fight in the district where Republicans have a 44 to 30 percent registration age.
Democrat leaders claim victory.
Yesterday was a moral victory and so forth.
But Republicans said that Busby's failure to win more than 50% 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 that would have to be right.
The culture corruption is not going to take them anywhere.
Delay is out of the picture.
But if they can't win this seat, they're going to need to win seven seats like this.
They're going to need to take seven seats currently held by Republicans.
And if they can't win this one, and they're looking at this one, oh man, they thought this was going to be a trend, but she didn't even get 44%.
She got 43.9% of the vote.
There's still 10,000 right-hand ballots that have yet to be counted.
But they're not all going to go one way.
I mean, you've got all these candidates.
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%.
She got 40.
Democrats are like 46.2%, 47%, something like that.
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, Quinn 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.
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 people cheat.
They don't think they have a problem.
And they're still focused, as they always are.
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 because they're not inspiring anybody.
Republicans may not be either, but I'll tell you what, one thing people on the Republican side have is an absolute 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.
I'll come back.
We'll go with the audio sound by CNN.
Paula Zahn now did an investigation of John Conyers accusing or being accused of using his staff to babysit a two-month-old story and CNN, oh, they've got tapes.
They've got, wait till you hear this.
We'll get it.
I'll 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.
We'll get to John Conyers stuff here in a second.
I want you to hear Barbara Boxer Tuesday night on hardball on MSNBC just to show you that what these people are up to is getting Bush, and they don't care what else they wreck.
And she also in these bites, there's three of them, will demonstrate just how 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 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, 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, maybe toward another war 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 going to be the matter.
That's really going to matter.
The Jimmy Carter argument.
Sanctions.
Yeah, I'm on a bill.
We're going to be tough.
We're going to 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, did this story say, well, I know nuclear weapons take out their nukes is still on the table, but 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 world, 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 in 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 who they are.
I just wanted you to hear this because the country got to stop it.
We need a new president.
We can't, Matthew.
Wait, anyway, 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.
Jack and Alfreda, Georgia, welcome to the EIB Network.
Nice to have you with us.
Thank you.
How are you, Rush?
Good, sir.
Good.
My comment had to do with your observation that there was some indefinite nature to the charges that were filed against Masawi.
I believe that he was clearly a conspirator to commit murder.
He was an accessory before the fact.
He possessed knowledge of a veritable certainty of the act occurring.
And I do not know the actual indictments placed against him, but it seems to me that if the prosecutor had been 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, at the time this happened, remember, this is pre-9/11 when all this discovery of Masawi is taking place.
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.
I think of all the data that was on Masawi'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, William Tucker today, the American Spectator, says, I hate to spoil the fun, but I really don't see the point of the courtroom ritual being conducted right now about Masawi.
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 2001 for an expired visa after arousing the suspicion of flight instructors.
So what's his crime?
Masawi 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 depending on wouldn't it have happened?
Maybe so, but that's not the point.
Point is, why didn't anybody ask him?
And that's what do you mean?
We sit around, we wait for criminals to turn themselves in?
When does this happen?
It doesn't happen.
Certainly not enough to make it worthy of an official policy.
Yeah, we're going to solve crime because we're going to wait for the bad guys to report before they do it.
No, the FBI and the CI is supposed to find this stuff out, and they didn't ask him.
The answer is simple.
Masawa didn't ask him because Masawi 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 in 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 saying goes.
So, you know, the end result here is, you know, favorable, but 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 dude.
Boy, I don't know where the time's gone.
First hour is in the can.
The tape's on there over the way the museum warehouse where all the artifacts are being kept in secret.
▲
Export Selection