All Episodes
Previous Next
May 4, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:36
May 4, 2006, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
I know.
This Masawe business, folks, this is unbelievable.
And I'm really not talking about the verdict and all this, but the reaction to it shows that we don't know.
At least some of us haven't learned anything.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome back.
Great to have you.
The Rush Limbaugh program and the EIB network raring and ready to go.
Revved up at full speed here from the EIB Southern Command.
Our telephone number, if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882 and the email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
And a special welcome to those of you watching the program on the DittoCam today at rushlimbaugh.com.
That's a special service made available to members, subscribers at rushlimbaugh.com.
They also get to watch this program take place in addition to hear it and listen to it.
I got to bed at 5.30 this morning, folks, and I got up at 8.
Boy, it was tough.
Actually, I woke up at 7.30 and I just wanted to go back to sleep, and I couldn't.
Well, yeah, if I keep this up, the Newsweek gang is going to have to finally get it right about me being a hermit.
I met and had dinner last night with Justice Scalia in Missouri.
He was at a speaking tour yesterday, spoke in St. Louis yesterday afternoon, and he spoke in my adopted hometown.
A real hometown.
I told you yesterday it was going to be a late night.
And when I'm this little sleep, sometimes I get giddy.
So bear with me today, folks.
He spoke in Cape Girardeau, my hometown.
They call it the Show Me Center.
And after that, he was hosted at my cousin Steve's home for dinner.
There are about 22 people there.
The governor of Missouri was there.
Matt Blunt, the lieutenant governor, Peter Kender, was there.
My uncle Steve Sr., who's a federal judge in St. Louis, and my cousin Steve Jr. is on the Missouri Supreme Court.
I was proud to tell Justice Scalia that I'm the first member of my family that did not graduate from college.
You know, you watch certain television shows these days and sports events, and the hero of the day.
Yeah, yeah, and I'm very, very proud.
I'm the first member of my family to get a college degree.
And of course, I'm the first in my family, and I may be the only in my family that doesn't have one.
And I'm smarter than all of them.
I even said that at the table last night.
I was whispering it to somebody.
I thought I was whispering, and they all heard it.
And everybody started laughing.
But it was a great time.
And it was everything I hoped that Justice Scalia was being.
He was down to earth, and he was open.
He was candid about things, describing how the court operates.
And people were peppering him with questions.
And I finally said to him, I said, you know, I really respect you doing this because I'm sure when you leave the office, you like to get away from the office.
But he was a gamer last night.
This was a tremendous amount of fun.
Because it was late night, had a fly back and rolled in here.
Actually landed about, I guess it was 4.15.
And I just, I don't care what time it is.
I cannot just go straight to bed when I get home.
It's impossible for me to do it.
I feel like I'm still cheating myself on some part of the day.
If the minute I get home, I go to bed.
So I just cannot do it.
I don't remember what I did, but I know that I didn't go to bed.
Now, let's start with the Masawi business.
Ladies and gentlemen, I want to try to focus here not so much on whether the death penalty should have or should not have been part of his, should have been the verdict yesterday.
It's six of one half dozen or other to me compared to what else needs to be said about this.
And let's start by listening to some soundbites.
Here's first is the president's reaction after the verdict yesterday.
Mr. Masawi got a fair trial.
The jury convicted him to life in prison where he'll spend the rest of his life.
In so doing, they spared his life, which is something that he evidently wasn't willing to do for innocent American citizens.
What is this being so concerned?
He made a mockery of this trial.
He made a mockery of this courtroom.
He turned that courtroom totally around and used it for his own purposes.
And he succeeded.
I'm not talking about whether or not he succeeded in staving off the death penalty.
And everybody says, well, we can't kill the guy and make him a martyr.
And as Mark Levin says in his blog today at National Review Online, it seems to me in the Middle East, you can't fling a dead cat without hitting a martyr.
They're all over the place.
Martyrs are everywhere.
They're not dying in droves on purpose.
A bunch of garbage that we've bought into.
But that's still not the point.
I mean, people have that attitude.
We're just missing the whole point of the war on terror here in the way we are dealing with these particular suspects.
Let me give you another example.
Here is Tim Romer.
He was on CNN's Wolf Blitzer situation room.
He was a 9-11 Commission member.
And Blitzer says, I know you've spent a lot of time with family members.
What do you make of this?
What's your reaction to the decision?
There'll be lots of opinions about whether this was the right or the wrong opinion, but we have a system that works.
And for the hearts and minds in the world looking at our system, this is what really separates us from the terrorists.
I'll tell you what separates us from the terrorists is that they aren't stigmatized by guilt.
They are laughing themselves silly at all this.
This Masawi guy, I don't know if he's a genius or genuinely insane, but he totally controlled this trial and totally controlled the courtroom.
And he was able to turn it into a political soapbox for himself.
And here we are, here's Romer applauding ourselves for what the world is going to think.
Mr. Romer, I guarantee you that not one terrorist around the world is going to lay down his jihad or his beheading knife or his IED because of this thing that happened in a courtroom yesterday with Masawi.
We have not.
We have not diminished the number of terrorists by any number whatsoever.
And we haven't shown the rest of the world, you know, maybe we ought to sympathize with the United States.
Why, why, why, look, they did a fair trial with this guy that wanted to be part of the team, blew up 3,000 Americans, but they still, that's not how the world's looking at it.
Who cares how the world's looking at it?
We are in a war.
We tried this guy as a common everyday criminal who happened to have news that he didn't tell us about regarding a plan to blow up a couple buildings or three buildings and so forth, and maybe even more.
These people are conducting a war against us.
This was not an act of vandalism for crying out loud.
We're not trying some idiot third-rate criminal vandal here.
We are at war with jihadists.
This act was an act of genocide against the United States, and it was the first of many that they hoped to be able to make.
And here we are applauding ourselves.
It gets even better.
We've got some 9-11 families.
Now, it seems to me that the politicized 9-11 families, those who hate Bush, always seem to get to the microphones and the cameras first after one of these things.
Here a couple of sound bites.
Rosemary Dillard, a portion of her remarks after the verdict.
We're not all safe.
All the things that they were going to put in place since 9-11 have not happened.
So we, as voters, as Americans, we've got to get on our job now to make sure that things change.
It's going to take your help, and we've got to get our congresspeople, our president, everybody's got to be involved.
Lord, help us.
I mean, it's tough to sit here.
This is a 9-11 family member, I know, folks.
But I don't understand the point.
We're not all safe.
Maybe whether Masawi is put to death or goes to jail for life are not safe.
That's probably true.
We're not all safe.
We're never, ever, all going to be safe anymore because of what happened on 9-11.
But I don't know what, you know, all the things that we were going to put in place since 9-11 haven't happened.
Okay, I wonder who's responsible for that.
Is she paying attention here?
Who's trying to hold up any efforts that we make, obstruct any efforts that we're making to try to find out when the next hit will be and who's going to do it?
Here's Carrie Lameck.
I hope I'm pronouncing her name right.
Is it Lameck or Leemack?
And she's also a family member.
She said this after the verdict.
This country needs to understand the real risks that we're facing.
We can't even get our congresspeople and our president to lock up nuclear material, even though terrorists, including Osama bin Laden, have said he wants to kill 4 million Americans.
If we're going to blame Zacharias Mousawi, he's not the real problem.
The real problem are the terrorists who do want to kill us, like Osama bin Laden, who's still not captured.
All right, now we're getting closer to having some sense here, but still a little bit off the mark.
But I got to take a break here before I go too long here.
End up with a sort of a wedgie short segment following.
So stick with this brief timeout back in just a second.
Rush Limbaugh fighting fatigue, fighting the fatigue brought on by excess partying.
But nevertheless, revved up at full speed here at the EIP network, 800-282-2882.
Let's replay Carrie Lameck or Leemack, however she pronounced it.
I really don't know, folks.
I read closed captioning when I watch television, so I don't hear names pronounced a lot.
But here's her comment again to preface my in-depth, timely analysis.
This country needs to understand the real risks that we're facing.
We can't even get our congresspeople and our president to lock up nuclear material, even though terrorists, including Osama bin Laden, have said he wants to kill 4 million Americans.
If we're going to blame Zacharias Moussawi, he's not the real problem.
The real problem are the terrorists who do want to kill us, like Osama bin Laden, who's still not captured.
The reason I'm torn here, because even though she may not know it, she's right about a couple things.
Now, this is obvious.
Obviously, here, an anti-administration family member, they are the ones that managed to get to the drive-by media broadcast apparatus faster than anybody else does.
She's right.
The country needs to understand the real risks that we're facing.
But trials like this do not help.
I'm sorry, folks.
This is not the way you win wars.
You don't win wars in courtrooms with defense lawyers coming up with excuses.
He was left alone by his parents in Morocco or whatever the hell it was for crying out loud.
Hell's bells.
This is totally irrelevant.
These are jihadists.
These are warriors.
These are people who have the intention of committing genocide.
And to sit there and deal with this on a case-by-case basis is not going to help us deal with the upcoming conflicts with these people that we're going to have because we're not going to defeat them in the courtroom.
But Rush, but Rush, what about the system?
I'm just.
I have no quarrel with the system of justice just being misused here.
This is not, I mean, these judges, these defense lawyers, they're not even educated on the ideology of these people.
This is an ideology we're facing.
It's an ideology of hate, barbarism, genocide.
It's just, it's all over.
And yet, we're going to try this guy as though he's just an average ordinary American citizen.
It's gone astray for some reason.
And we're going to come up with great reasons to pat ourselves on the back while we accomplish nothing in the war on terror.
Now, I know you might think, well, Rush, what about the 9-11 family?
Well, I'll get to that because that's a good question.
You think I'm ignoring their pain or slighting them?
Not at all.
I don't think the 9-11 families were the only victims.
The nation was the target.
Those 3,000 people were not personally selected by these terrorists or bin Laden or anybody.
Those are all of our citizens.
They are part of the nation.
The nation was hit.
And not the slight by any stretch, the pain and so forth of the actual families of those who got hit, but it's about more than that.
It's about more than that.
And when these families, of course, they have to deal with their pain in any number of ways.
And some of them have chosen, have been seduced by the liberals out there, these leftists preying on victims and giving them something to latch onto in terms of meaning for the rest of their lives.
And the sum total here of Ms. Lameck's comment is to blame the United States.
When you get right down to it, it's not Masawi's problem.
We haven't gotten bin Laden, so we're not solving any problem.
We can't get our congresspeople and our president to lock up nuclear.
You know, if she would just leave out the president and the previous Rosemary Dillard, too, the problem here is that Democrats in Congress, when it comes to taking action to fight the war on terror, I mean, when they're going to try to criminalize the apprehension of prisoners and the interrogation of prisoners, if we are going to criminalize other aspects of the president's behavior to impeach him over this national security program of foreign surveillance,
I mean, silly.
Another soundbite.
This is, who is this?
Widower Abraham Scott had some comments after the verdict.
I hate to say this.
I don't have real confidence in this administration bringing him to justice.
I look forward to the new administration coming in and focusing on what's needed to be done in terms of taking the necessary intelligent action and military action to bring bin Laden to justice.
All right.
So the administration that actually apprehended Masawi and put him on trial can't be trusted because it's not competent.
So this guy's waiting for the next administration, meaning a Democrat.
This guy cannot even be paying attention to what the Democrats are saying if that's what he's waiting for.
But also this notion that capturing bin Laden is the solution and the answer to this, it may be for the 9-11 families in one of the ways they will feel justice and vengeance and so forth, but that's not going to solve the nation's problem that we face during this period that we are at war.
Now, I've got the New York Times story here.
Masawi given life term by a jury.
And we got, don't worry, Kristen Breitweiser is coming up, but I'm going to save Ms. Breitweiser for after the break.
It was a 42-page verdict given to the judge, and the jurors listed how many of them agreed with each of the more than two dozen mitigating factors put forward by the defense.
Now, the jurors, they didn't go out there and speak, and they didn't explain, but if you look at some of the juror cards, the juror forms, you can get a pretty good idea what it was that moved them.
The form said that two mitigating factors drew the greatest agreement with nine jurors finding they were valid issues to be weighed in their decision.
The first was that Mr. Masawi suffered an unstable, early childhood and dysfunctional family life and a hostile relationship with his mother that led to his being placed in French orphanages.
Now, does that not sound like the couch on the Oprah Winfrey show?
What in the world does that have to do with the war on terror?
And by the way, I am not suggesting he should have been put to death.
I don't want anybody to get confused about this because that's not my point here.
We are trying this case in the midst of the war on terror, and we are applying our own guilt-laden societal screw-ups and our own invented traumas and our own invented dysfunctions, and we are applying them to an enemy combatant and excusing his behavior.
This is reminiscent to me of the Menendez jury, when one of those Menendez kids went out there and shot his mother and she wasn't dead yet, so he went out, reloaded, and shot again from point-blank range, and the jurors felt so sorry for him because he wasn't going to have his mother anymore.
Yeah, well, that's because he killed his mother.
Yeah, but he's such a good boy.
And he's just going to, he's not going to have his mother.
The second factor, get this, you want to talk about the feminization of this country.
The second factor that these nine jurors said weighed heavily on their minds, at least on their voter cards, juror cards, was that his father had a violent temper and physically and emotionally abused his family.
Now, these jurors end up being persuaded he should not be put to death because he basically had a bad childhood in any structured financial support or anything, emotional support.
He was in an orphanage and so forth.
This is a travesty.
This is an absolute travesty.
I know it's not his fault.
It really wasn't his fault.
It was Bin Laden's fault for recruiting him and whoever, whatever mental gyrations they went through.
I have a piece here by Walid Farris that I want to share with you.
We come back from the break.
The New York Times and L.A. Times, they write editorials about this today, and both editorials talk about how they get Club Gitmo involved.
It's just, oh, if the wrong people get control of this nation's defense, folks, I will, for the first time, express great concern to you.
Pumping up the volume on the EIB network.
All right, let's go to the audio soundbites.
I want to play you a soundbite from Kristen Breitweiser, a 9-11 widow.
She was on a hardball with Chris Matthews last night.
I watched this on the way.
I was flying to Missouri last night.
I watched this, but I wasn't really paying much attention because I had accompaniment, which was a better view.
But Nevertheless, I want to illustrate here that there is, there is a symbiotic relationship between some of these 9-11 families and the drive-by media and the Democratic Party.
Here is Kristen Breitweiser's reaction to the verdict.
I think that we have other people in our own custody that certainly knew more than Mousawi, namely Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Khalad bin Attash and Ramzi bin al-Shib.
And I think that they had a more direct connection to 9-11 and more appropriately should be being prosecuted by our Justice Department, more so than Mousawi, who was in jail on the day of 9-11.
All right.
All right.
So the sum totalers, well, Masawi, big deal.
They're not making any headway trying Masawi.
What about bin al-Shib?
What about Khalid Sheikh Muhammad?
What about Tawfiq bin Attash?
I hold here in my formerly nicotine statement a summary of U.S. media reaction to the Masawi case.
The New York Times said the jury's rejection of the death penalty for Masawi seemed to surprise most people in the courtroom, but that wider reactions varied greatly.
That for the Times, the most important thing about the Masawi trial was that it happened.
The proceedings, including the jury deliberations, were long and difficult, but they were also fair and in accordance with the rules of American justice.
However, the paper suggested that that was not the story for hundreds of other people, many far less complicit than Mr. Masawi, who are languishing in the prison at Club Gitmo.
So the New York Times pines for the lost boys of Club Gitmo.
While we're putting Masawi on trial, why aren't we extending the loveliness of the American system of judicial jurisprudence to these unfortunate souls who are being held and tortured illegally by the Bush administration?
This was a theme taken up by the Los Angeles Times in an article entitled No Trials for Key Players.
Now, how does this happen?
Well, it's all the same.
It's like I was talking about yesterday.
When do we find out, isn't all this news the same?
Who is it that is responsible for this?
The LA Times goes Club Gitmo 2.
No trials for key players.
Writer David Savage remarked that two presumed key planners of the al-Qaeda plot, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shib, have not been charged, but they've been in custody for more than three years.
Just what Kristen Breitweiser just said.
For the Washington Post, the verdict was a resounding victory for Mousawi's defense team and for American justice.
In an editorial headline, The Right Punishment, The Washington Post said a jury has to have courage to reject capital punishment in a case like that of Zakarius Mousawi.
Let me jump to this piece here by Walid Farris, Mousawi Wrong Court, Wrong Debate.
So when I read this today, I said, hubba, how this echoes, it's written much better than I was thinking it, but it echoes my instinctive reaction to this.
Let me just read you some excerpts of this.
Mr. Farris says, let me be clear from the beginning.
The issue I'm raising is not about the death sentence or life in prison sentencing.
That part should have been the last stage in the debate.
The Masawi trial is not about the principle of common criminal sentencing per se.
It's about criminalizing terrorism and its root ideologies.
And here are a few points that make my analytical case.
The victims of September 11th, and this is so dead on, the victims of September 11th were not selected by al-Qaeda or even by the perpetrators, including Masawi, personally.
The men, women, and children massacred throughout that day of infamy are the targets of a terror war on America, not vandalism on two towers in New York and a large building in Washington.
Terrorism could have targeted other high-rises and objectives in different cities.
The matter is not an individual vendetta between Misawi and the 300 persons Muhammad Atta and his jihadists have killed.
America was targeted as a nation for the purpose of genocide.
As a massacred collectivity, the victims of 9-11 belong to the nation, not to their relatives.
As individuals, the victims are profoundly mourned by all Americans and above all by their survivors.
So who tried al-Qaeda on behalf of the nation in this Masawi?
And nobody did.
Al-Qaeda, Jihad, this whole organization that we're facing was not put on trial.
An individual was.
We're all patting ourselves on the back about our great system and how the rest of the world and the terrorists will see how a civilized society does it.
Well, I'm all for civilized societies doing the right thing, but if we think that's going to win the war on terror, if we think that bin Laden's going to watch the results of this trial, say, you know what?
We've been wrong about the U.S. We're going to, we're going to, we're going to lay down our arms and we're going to cancel a jihad against the U.S. That's silly to think that.
And to be governed by that possibility.
Anyway, another point from Mr. Ferris.
Masawi is part of a machinery larger than himself.
In the 9-11 planning process, he is not a sole mechanism acting individually.
He was executing orders by al-Qaeda.
He had the intention of carrying them out.
He is a nucleus that fell behind in a wider cell that moved forward.
His relation to the massacre is not pragmatic, but mechanical.
Hence, the judicial process of finding out if he caused or not the process of specific events is not the issue.
For he is openly admitted and it was proven that he was part of the machinery put in place to perpetrate the massacre.
That he slipped or failed or missed his opportunity is only one fact within a greater reality, which is his commitment to achieve the mass killing and his participation in the chain of events that led to it, even if he didn't walk through the last part of the horror.
More seriously is the current system's ability to process the terror cases.
Per my own experience and open documents available, most of the players in a current courtroom setting are often unable to absorb the density of the confrontation.
The jury, made of ordinary citizens, generally do not comprehend the ideology of the jihadists, and thus they can't make a strategically educated decision, not on the sentencing process, but on the essence of the war crime at hand.
U.S. judges are highly capable of controlling the procedure in their courtrooms, but they haven't been able by the system to try a war with jihadi terror if not specialized in Khomeiniism or Salafism and other movement strategies, thinking process, or even tactics.
Prosecutors are as well thrown into battles of ideas beyond their basic training.
In the Masawi case, the jury asks for a dictionary refused by the judge.
The question deserves an answer.
Well, what he's saying here is what I was trying to say in my own way before I started reading the piece.
We're not dealing with a single guy here.
We're not dealing with a vandal.
We're dealing with an ideology, and nobody's educating people in the courtroom about this ideology.
The most, I guess the greatest educations being attempted is by the left, in which they're trying to convince as many Americans as possible that Bush is the terrorist, that Bush is responsible for all this, and that Bush is holding a bunch of unfortunate waifs who haven't been charged.
Oh, woe is us.
How can we dare do this?
What's the world going to think of us?
Bush is the criminal, blah, The debate on the Masawi case, continues Mr. Waleed Ferris, won't stop nationwide and beyond in view of the progressive realization by most Americans and many citizens of other democracies that this case will be a benchmark in the history of the judicial front with terror.
Therefore, it's important to avoid all these Byzantine debates and reserve the energies to the center of the crisis, not its peripheries.
Consider, for example, how the martyrdom affair plays in terrorist chat rooms.
Mr. Ferris has gone to the chat rooms where the terrorists are watching a trial and they're listening to Americans debate.
Well, you know, we ought not make this guy a martyr.
We ought not kill him.
We ought not to give him a death penalty because that's exactly what he wants.
Here's just a sample from a Salafist chat room.
These infidels are so easy to dupe, said a cadre in the Al-Ansar Paul talk room a few months ago.
All you have to do is play to their ethics or lead them to believe that we are simple-minded.
They'll think we're smarter.
They'll think that we're bigger, and they will feel sorry for us, and they will have, I'm adding this, and our collective guilt will make it such that we're going to be nice because we can't show the full force of our power and our intentions.
And Mr. Ferris says, this is exactly what Zacharias Masawi was able to achieve, alone against the whole American political culture.
First, he dramatized his personal life to the extreme, leading some to believe that his past was the root cause for his violent choices, when in fact, the ideology that recruited him was responsible for the jihad he chose to practice, not his parents, not an orphanage, and not a lack of money.
The people that recruited him are responsible.
The ideologists, the jihadists, the al-Qaeda types, whoever.
And they were not on trial in that courtroom.
And that's what's wrong with this.
He was on trial as a single guy for whatever emotional help, assistance we can give ourselves.
Second, Masawi dramatized his stance to the limits by threatening to throw himself into the death row and force the jury to retreat into psychological guilt.
Indeed, one al-Qaeda man, initial member of the 9-11 terror raid, single-handedly outmaneuvered the jury, the court, and potentially the public.
By transforming the judicial challenge into a debate about death penalty and all the American psychological consequences that follows, Zakarius Moussawi deflected the attention from the real mammoth in the courtroom, the ideology of jihadism.
Instead of trying the criminal ideology he acted on behalf, America fell into the trap of struggling with itself as a merciful or revengeful society.
Shelby Steele comes home again.
By the way, interviewing him next Tuesday for the next issue of the Limbaugh Letter.
Because that piece, everything he wrote in that piece, you can find in every mistake we are making.
Collective guilt, all the American psychological consequences.
Oh, yeah, it was like the Oprah Show.
Listening to what these jurors decided, well, poor, poor kids in an orphanage abandoned, beaten up by his party.
It's mandatory you got to have that in there because all men are predators.
It had nothing to do with making him who he is.
There are all kinds of people that go through circumstances like that that do not become mass murderers, do not become members of a whacked out, dangerous ideology.
Masawi feels that he won all the way, even if he got life in prison.
He played the martyrdom card till his audience nauseated.
He then played his personal life card till he obtained the mitigating factor.
He played it tight, close, and smartly.
His colleagues brought down towers five years ago, but Masawi administered another type of strikes against his foes, defeating them through their own system.
What the courtroom in Virginia missed in its trial of the decade was the factory that produced Masawi's mind.
A life sentence is not necessarily a bad choice in democracies or the wrong message to send when needed if the nation the jury came from isn't able to cast a death sentence on the ideologies of jihad and hatred.
And that's why this courtroom, any courtroom as we are currently constructed, is the wrong place to be fighting this war or to be getting some sort of vengeance or to learn more about what's going to happen with these people in the war on terror.
And you can read all these baseless, worthless, silly, stupid editorials praising the American system.
It works.
The world sees that we're good people.
Spare me.
Isn't it enough that we know we're good people?
Why can't we take solace in the fact that we know it?
We're going to let our guilt run around and make us think maybe we're not good people.
But we are good people.
And it doesn't take much confidence.
And it's not hard to come to this conclusion.
But then the New York Times and the LA Times still have to get in their digs that, well, yeah, we got Miss Alley, but what about the poor boys of Club Gitmo who aren't getting such a fair shake?
I mean, I have never seen such a lack of understanding of what's actually going on and how to deal with it.
I can't tell you how long a period of time.
Got to run, folks.
Be right back.
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
El Rushball behind the golden EIB microphone at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
I'm going to get to your phone calls here in just a sec, but I want to share with you one more soundbite from 9-11 widow Kristen Breitweiser from Hardball with Chris Matthews last night.
Obviously, I'm not stupid.
I understand that there are much talk, a rumor that we've tortured them or unable to prosecute them.
And I think that that needs to be debated amongst the American people.
If we are going to say that we successfully prosecute terrorists, then we should actually do that.
With the case of Mousawi, I don't think, you know, I think I hope it motivates our government to prosecute those people that we have in our custody that certainly had a more direct connection than Musawi did.
And I hope it sends a message that, you know, in some cases, torture is going to bar our ability to hold people accountable.
All right.
So, I mean, she just hits on all the drive-by media notes, all the liberal talking points, the Democrat Party talking points.
I, you know, folks, I understand the grief and the 9-11 family members are still experiencing.
I know some, and I understand.
But when they step off the reservation and start getting political, you know, I'm not going to let that grief give them cover.
When they start, you know, joining a political debate, then, you know, their political comments here are fair game.
And what she's talking about here, she's happy Mousawi will be spared, but what's she angry about?
She's angry that Khalid Sheikh Muhammad was tortured and can't be tried.
He shouldn't be tried.
He's an enemy combatant.
He doesn't deserve an American jury trial.
What needs to happen here is the American people need to get with it and understand that we are at war with an ideology, and these are members.
These are just individual pack rats.
And we're not going to win this war by prosecuting all these people.
We're never going to be able to do that.
Particularly in our system, when we can make juries think that they joined a jihad group and they have become Wahhabis or Salafists or whatever because of American-invented syndromes that we then project onto them.
Why?
Because of our collective guilt and our inability to project our power fully and decisively.
And we're never going to get any headway on this or make any headway.
Quickly, Brian in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, you're up next in EIB Network High.
Hi, Russ.
First of all, I just want to tell you, last Thursday, right outside of Baghdad, I lost my cousin, a very brave Marine, to a roadside bomb.
And I can truly say that we can partially blame the Liberal Democrats for his death because they continue to empower the terrorists by proving to them that it's not a priority to defeat them.
And I think yesterday's decision on Sal Masul is probably a direct result.
It's just another proof of what they're doing as far as swaying the country.
And you got to believe that the terrorists are smiling as to the decision of what they saw yesterday.
I couldn't agree more.
We are all terribly sorry for your loss.
That's coupled with the, if you believe that there's a partial culpability for inspiring the terrorists and motivating them, I totally understand that too.
You have all of our sympathies.
You're right.
You may have a point.
You know, this jury, it may be comprised of people who actually have been paying attention to all these things they've been hearing from the Democrats about how the war is immoral.
I've got to take a quick time out here.
Thanks for the call, Brian.
Back in just a second.
All right, time's flying, folks.
We're going to get to a lot more of your phone calls in the next hour.
Some really good immigration news coming up and other things, too.
I mean, we just got started.
▲
Export Selection